Potential-based and non-potential-based cohesive zone formulations under mixed-mode separation and over-closure. Part I: Theoretical analysis

Abstract This paper presents a thorough analysis of potential-based and non-potential-based cohesive zone models (CZMs) under conditions of mixed-mode separation and mixed-mode over-closure. Problems are identified with the well established potential-based Xu–Needleman (XN) model and a number of new potential-based and non-potential-based models are proposed. It is demonstrated that derivation of traction–separation relationships from a potential function can result in non-physical repulsive normal tractions and instantaneous negative incremental energy dissipation under displacement controlled monotonic mixed-mode separation when the work of tangential separation exceeds the work of normal separation. A modified potential-based (MP) model is proposed so that the zone in which repulsive normal tractions occur can be controlled. The MP model also provides an additional benefit of correct penalisation of mixed-mode over-closure, in contrast to the XN model. In order to fully eliminate the problem of repulsive normal tractions a non-potential-based CZM (NP1) is also proposed. This model is shown to provide physically realistic behaviour under conditions of displacement controlled mixed-mode separation and over-closure. Noting that the form of the traction–separation equations differ for mode I and mode II separation for the XN, MP and NP1 models, an additional non-potential-based model (NP2) is proposed so that near mode-independent behaviour can be achieved in displacement controlled separation, while correctly penalising over-closure. Following from the NP2 model, a non-potential-based model in which coupling is based on the separation magnitude is considered (SMC model). In the final part of the paper the performance of each model under traction controlled mixed-mode separation is investigated by numerically inverting the traction–separation equations. Separation paths for the XN model reveal a strong bias toward mode I separation while the NP1 model exhibits a bias towards mode II separation. Interestingly, the NP2 model exhibits a high degree of mode sensitivity under traction controlled conditions, in contrast to its near mode independence under displacement controlled conditions. It is demonstrated that incorrect weighting of the coupling terms in non-potential models can lead to the existence of a singularity under traction controlled conditions. Finally, it is demonstrated that the potential-based models fail to capture a gradual change from mode II to mode I work of separation, as reported experimentally for traction controlled interface separation. In a follow-on Part II companion paper a number of case studies are simulated, demonstrating that the theoretical findings of the present paper have significant implications for the finite element prediction of interface debonding.

[1]  W. Beckert,et al.  Fracture mechanical characterisation of mixed-mode toughness of thermoplast/glass interfaces , 2000 .

[2]  Anthony G. Evans,et al.  A bio-chemo-mechanical model for cell contractility , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  Katerina D. Papoulia,et al.  A cohesive zone model for fatigue crack growth allowing for crack retardation , 2009 .

[4]  Toshio Nakamura,et al.  Simulations of Crack Propagation in Porous Materials , 2001 .

[5]  Ming He,et al.  Separation work analysis of cohesive law and consistently coupled cohesive law , 2011 .

[6]  S. Spearing,et al.  Multiscale mechanics modeling of direct silicon wafer bonding , 2009 .

[7]  A. Combescure,et al.  A thermodynamic method for the construction of a cohesive law from a nonlocal damage model , 2009 .

[8]  Huang Yuan,et al.  Computational analysis of thin coating layer failure using a cohesive model and gradient plasticity , 2003 .

[9]  T. Siegmund,et al.  An irreversible cohesive zone model for interface fatigue crack growth simulation , 2003 .

[10]  T. Siegmund,et al.  An analysis of the delamination of an environmental protection coating under cyclic heat loads , 2005 .

[11]  van den Mj Marco Bosch,et al.  An improved description of the exponential Xu and Needleman cohesive zone law for mixed-mode decohesion , 2006 .

[12]  Xiaopeng Xu,et al.  Void nucleation by inclusion debonding in a crystal matrix , 1993 .

[13]  Sunil Saigal,et al.  COHESIVE ELEMENT MODELING OF VISCOELASTIC FRACTURE: APPLICATION TO PEEL TESTING OF POLYMERS , 2000 .

[14]  Bent F. Sørensen,et al.  Characterizing delamination of fibre composites by mixed mode cohesive laws , 2009 .

[15]  J. Rice,et al.  DISLOCATION NUCLEATION AT METAL-CERAMIC INTERFACES , 1992 .

[16]  Glaucio H. Paulino,et al.  A unified potential-based cohesive model of mixed-mode fracture , 2009 .

[17]  William Ronan,et al.  Numerical investigation of the active role of the actin cytoskeleton in the compression resistance of cells. , 2012, Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials.

[18]  E. Giessen,et al.  Modeling of crazing using a cohesive surface methodology , 2000 .

[19]  P. McGarry,et al.  An analytical solution for the stress state at stent-coating interfaces. , 2012, Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials.

[20]  van der Erik Giessen,et al.  Numerical analysis of indentation-induced cracking of brittle coatings on ductile substrates , 2002 .

[21]  M. Ortiz,et al.  Computational modelling of impact damage in brittle materials , 1996 .

[22]  N. Chandra,et al.  Analysis of crack growth and crack-tip plasticity in ductile materials using cohesive zone models , 2003 .

[23]  D. S. Dugdale Yielding of steel sheets containing slits , 1960 .

[24]  J. Hutchinson,et al.  The influence of plasticity on mixed mode interface toughness , 1993 .

[25]  J. Mosler,et al.  A thermodynamically and variationally consistent class of damage-type cohesive models , 2011 .

[26]  Y. K. Chou,et al.  Cohesive zone effects on coating failure evaluations of diamond-coated tools , 2008 .

[27]  Nicholas A. Warrior,et al.  Mixed‐Mode Delamination – Experimental and Numerical Studies , 2003 .

[28]  G. I. Barenblatt The formation of equilibrium cracks during brittle fracture. General ideas and hypotheses. Axially-symmetric cracks , 1959 .

[29]  M. D. Thouless,et al.  Elastic–plastic mode-II fracture of adhesive joints , 2001 .

[30]  Zhigang Suo,et al.  Experimental determination of interfacial toughness curves using Brazil-nut-sandwiches , 1990 .

[31]  F. Shang,et al.  Cohesive zone modeling of interfacial delamination in PZT thin films , 2009 .

[32]  Z. Suo,et al.  Mixed mode cracking in layered materials , 1991 .

[33]  E. van der Giessen,et al.  Indentation-induced interface delamination of a strong film on a ductile substrate , 2001 .

[34]  P. Zavattieri,et al.  Cohesive zone simulations of crack growth along a rough interface between two elastic–plastic solids , 2008 .

[35]  Bent F. Sørensen,et al.  Micromechanical model of cross-over fibre bridging – Prediction of mixed mode bridging laws , 2008 .

[36]  Bent F. Sørensen,et al.  Determination of mixed mode cohesive laws , 2006 .

[37]  S. Goutianos,et al.  Path dependence of truss-like mixed mode cohesive laws , 2012 .